Positive Action
There are two paths of positive action in confronting Zionism: legal action and armed resistance. One crucial point must be noted: legal action is of limited applicability within Arab lands, for the judiciary there lies entirely in the hands of the ruler, and every Arab ruler today is, in one way or another, beholden to Zionism. Thus, the call for legal action against Zionism is largely confined to efforts outside the Arab world, as will be discussed. Armed resistance, by contrast, is inherently bound to Arab lands, for it ceases to be resistance if practiced beyond them.
Legal Action
It is regrettable that the Arab who has left his homeland for whatever reason and settled abroad often carries—consciously or unconsciously—a diminished regard for the law, if not outright skepticism toward it. This may stem from the condition of law in Arab countries, where it is seldom treated with respect or trust. As a result, many Arabs fail to grasp the value of legal procedure in places such as Europe. In truth, legal accountability is what politicians and officials fear most, for it is the one circumstance in which they may be compelled to justify their actions—something that unsettles them profoundly, having grown accustomed to acting without question. When summoned by a court, their position becomes scarcely different from that of the accused.
Arabs have neglected the legal avenues available to them to prosecute Zionism for its crimes. Over the course of forty years, I have observed ignorance, hesitation, and fear in pursuing legal action. I have never heard of a case brought in Britain to challenge the crime embodied in granting Palestine, through the Balfour Declaration, to a people who had no rightful existence there. Nor have I seen any Iraqi effort to bring legal action against Zionism for the siege, the crimes against humanity, and the war crimes associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Let me offer a single example of what might have been possible—and how neglect born of ignorance or fear has thwarted meaningful action. The European Union imposed sanctions on Syria beginning in 2012, renewing them annually, until Zionism was able to secure its aims in Syria by toppling Baathist rule and delivering power into the hands of disparate foreign elements. These sanctions constituted, quite simply, a violation of the European human rights framework. Yet I have never heard of a single individual bringing a case against the European Union on the basis of rulings by the European Court affirming that any measure violating fundamental human rights—even if issued by the Security Council—is null and void and carries no binding force. Any affected party could have challenged the sanctions before the European judiciary, but no one did.
This example underscores the need for a movement of legal awareness among Arabs living abroad—awareness of the laws governing their rights and the means of safeguarding them. There are dozens of similar examples, yet they remain meaningless unless activated, for Zionism thrives on ignorance, intimidation, and coercion. In an age where access to information is easier than ever, there is no excuse for such inaction. How many Arabs living in Germany, for instance, know that they may bring a case before German courts against a British official for crimes committed in Gaza?
The purpose of legal action in confronting Zionism is not merely to win cases—important though that may be—but also twofold: first, to demonstrate to the adversary a refusal to submit and a determination to struggle by every available means; and second, to curb the recklessness of officials who might otherwise carry out Zionist policies, for the prospect of personal accountability may give them pause.
Armed Resistance
The principle of self-determination, recognized—whether sincerely or hypocritically—by nations of the world, grants every people the right to shape their intellectual, political, economic, and military life free from external interference. The twentieth century witnessed numerous examples of groups once branded as terrorists fighting to end occupation, only later to become the recognized governments of their nations. This pattern might have been universal, were it not for the exclusion of the Palestinian people from the right to self-determination, when Europe’s unwanted populations were brought to their land, and the Palestinians—who demanded their own homeland—were labelled terrorists.
Zionism further innovated a system within occupied Arab lands by creating nominal statelets—mere outposts built around oil infrastructure—installing rulers over them, and proclaiming these artificial constructs as legitimate states. Those who challenged this arrangement, or invoked principles of international law such as “persistent objection,” were likewise branded as terrorists.
It then went further still, not only fragmenting Arab lands into statelets but actively toppling political systems and installing client governments, granting them legitimacy while designating their opponents as terrorists—as occurred in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
Iraq may serve as a model for armed resistance—indeed, the most complex case. If resistance is viable there, it is all the more so elsewhere in the Arab world. The complexity of Iraq lies in the fact that its government is aligned with Zionism, while the majority of its people oppose it. This alone exposes the falsehood of the so-called “democratic” system imposed there, which is invoked to justify attacks on Iraqi resistance under the guise of defending the state.
Following the 2003 invasion and occupation, a constitution was imposed upon Iraq, structuring the state along sectarian and ethnic divisions unknown in its long history. The constitution was rendered effectively immutable. Oil revenues were placed under US control, military bases established at will, and security agreements concluded without public knowledge.
The right of the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from such domination is beyond dispute. The question is how this may be achieved.
The digital age has altered the balance of power. A single individual, operating from a room, may disrupt the electrical infrastructure of an advanced industrial state. Thus, resistance movements can impose significant costs through relatively simple means.
Accordingly, sustained attacks on military bases and airfields—particularly through the use of drones, which are inexpensive and require minimal infrastructure—could compel withdrawal by raising the cost of occupation beyond acceptable limits. Even highly advanced systems depend on vulnerable logistical networks. Small, mobile groups could inflict continuous strain, leading to eventual disengagement.
Should civilians or civilian infrastructure be targeted in response, resistance could shift toward economic interests, which are numerous and accessible. In a system where material considerations often outweigh human ones, economic damage may ultimately determine the outcome.
The right to resist encompasses not only foreign forces but also locally constituted forces organized along sectarian or ethnic lines. Liberation, in this view, requires the removal of both external domination and its local extensions. A free Arab state, it is argued, cannot coexist with such parallel military structures.
A Necessary Conclusion
When Zionism began its gradual encroachment upon the Arabian Peninsula and southern Mesopotamia two centuries ago, it recognized the sensitivity of occupying lands of profound religious significance. It therefore proceeded with caution and strategy, fostering alliances and reshaping the region incrementally.
Territorial divisions, such as the separation of Kuwait from Iraq, served to restrict natural access and reshape geopolitical realities. With the discovery of vast oil and gas reserves, local tribal structures were integrated into a system of control tied to resource management, with their stability linked to external allegiance. These arrangements were then formalized internationally as sovereign states.
From this perspective, the Arab nation is viewed as inherently unified, and the political entities that emerged under such circumstances as lacking historical or political legitimacy. Their unification is therefore presented as a necessity.
Historical precedents from the nineteenth century are invoked: the unification of the United States under Abraham Lincoln, of Germany under Otto von Bismarck, and of Italy under Giuseppe Garibaldi. In each case, unity was achieved not through unanimous consent but through force, justified by an appeal to the greater good.
The argument follows that nations are not unified by the consent of every faction, but by the pursuit of collective interest—and that the patterns of history, more often than not, repeat themselves.